This is a blog to discuss philosophy, chess, politics,
C. S. Lewis, or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss.
Wiki? What a scholar you are Victor.Oh, and there can't be fringe recons but there can be fringe dems, like daily kos &c.?If your students reasoned like you would they get an F?
As a professional librarian I often hear about the dangers of Wiki-style resources. Although there are important issues to consider, I don't think using these resources immediately discounts someone's scholarship. Indeed, the Encyclopaedia Britannica has begun to incorporate such a format:"In a bid to wed the comprehensive, grassroots information factory of Wikipedia with the authority of the traditional encyclopedia, Encyclopaedia Britannica is opening the floodgates for online user submissions into its 240-year-old publication -- a move it long resisted and sniffed was akin to intellectual pollution." (http://blog.wired.com/business/2008/06/ency.html)Articles such as the one at the following link have also indicated that wikis do have their strengths: http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1300000/1296968/p157-wilkinson.pdf?key1=1296968&key2=0590411221&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=2450605&CFTOKEN=62148270Furthermore, there are newer resources such as Citizendium that are trying to raise the bar in large scale collaborative knowledge ventures: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Welcome_to_CitizendiumLast, when links to Wikipedia are used on this blog I don't think they're meant to replace the process used when one is preparing a publication. Instead, they're simply meant to generate discussion.
VR: "This is a description of Christian reconstructionism from Wikipedia. It looks pretty scary to me, not perfectly normal, as Ilion seems to suggest."What Ilíon *actually* said is: "But, what admittedly small bit of reading I've done of *actual* "Christian Reconstructionist" (as in contrast to what the leftists/secularists *claim* to be "Christian Reconstructionism" positions and goals), I really can't see where they're much different from you or me."What Ilíon actually wrote is, of course, *vastly* different from what V.Reppert seems to have turned it into.
I'm hearing the phrase "Christian Reconstructionism" for the first time by reading this blog, and following the link to the Wikipedia entry.Am I just missing something, or is "Christian Reconstruction" just a less offensive way of saying "Christian Theocracy"? It seems the latter would be a more accurate and meaningful title for the movement (if my understanding of the wiki entry is correct).Besides the offense to American "Separation of church and state" mentality, what exactly do you find disturbing about it, Dr. Reppert?Let's throw governance out of the mix here for a second. Don't all Christians want to see the whole world become Christians? I mean, just as a matter of principle? Even if one is a Universalist, wouldn't one still prefer that all non-believers become believers *prior* to their demise on Earth? Now, I personally like the idea of separating my church from my state, but to pretend that I don't advocate my Christian sense of moral law when I vote would be disingenuous. All religious people in a democracy vote their religious conscious when electing their representatives. Further if one is an elected official, one governs, strongly influenced and guided by one's religion, no? Is it even possible to truly separate one's religion from one's politics? I'd imagine not.
Post a Comment